TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the agitation with other police constables. Apart from terminating their services, many of those police constables were also prosecuted. It appears that as a result of the demand by some Members of Parliament, many of the dismissed constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants and the Home Minister also directed withdrawal of prosecution against them. Some of the dismissed constables who were not taken back in service even as fresh entrants filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in 1969 and 1970 which were allowed by the High Court on October 1, 1975 quashing the orders of termination of those petitioners. Subsequently, some other constables whose services were similarly terminated also filed writ petitions in the Delhi Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement like the others dismissed with him and then reinstated and the question of delay or laches does not arise. learned Counsel contended that the Delhi Administration was duty bound to reinstate the petitioner also with the others and in not doing so, it has discriminated the petitioner. On this basis, it was urged, the question of laches or delay does not arise. Shri Mukhoty places strong reliance on the decision in Dharampal (supra) to support his submission. 4. The real question is : whether, the mere fact that termination of petitioner's service as a police constable in 1967 is alleged to be similar to that of the other police constables so dismissed in 1967 and then rei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....explained. Dharampal does not, therefore, help the petitioner to circumvent this obstacle. 6. The petitioner was appointed in 1964 and his service terminated after about three years in 1967. It is in 1989 after a lapse of about twenty-two years from the date of termination of his service that the petitioner chose to assail his dismissal, notwithstanding the fact that some of the dismissed constables challenged their dismissal as early as 1969 and 1970, within a period of two to three years, and others too did so soon after the success of the first batch in getting reinstated. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to explain why he chose to be silent for so long, if he too was interested in being reinstated and had not abandoned his cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imant. This is a material fact to be given due weight while considering the argument of discrimination in the present case for deciding whether the petitioner is in the same class as those who challenged their dismissal several years earlier and were consequently granted the relief of reinstatement. In our opinion, the lapse of a much longer unexplained period of several years in the case of the petitioner is a strong reason to not classify him with the other dismissed constables who approached the Court earlier and got reinstatement. It was clear to the petitioner latest in 1978 when the second batch of petitions were filed that the petitioner also will have to file a petition for getting reinstatement. Even then he chose to wait till 1989....